What
it’s about: To
protect children from abuse, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002
required all dioceses to implement “safe-environment” programs. Many parents
complain that some of the programs are too sexually explicit for children.
We’re investigating each program.

This
week: This, the
third in our series, looks at Good Touch/Bad Touch, a program created for
public schools 23 years ago.

What
critics say: Some
parents said theprogram expects too
much from children and places too much responsibility on them for avoiding
abuse.

What defenders say: Pamela Church, who created the
program, maintains that most parents would prefer to have someone who is
carefully trained by experts instruct children on how to protect themselves.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Is Good Touch/Bad
Touch a bad thing?

Some Catholic parents think so,
but the “safe-environment” program, intended to prevent sexual abuse of minors,
is still in use in many parts of the country.

Not so in the Diocese of
Arlington, Va. Early in 2005, at a meeting in Manassas, Va., parents objected
so strongly to Good Touch/Bad Touch that Bishop Paul Loverde
decided to replace it.

Mary Ann Kreitzer,
a concerned grandparent, said “dozens of parents” spoke out against the program
“because it was graphic, including a drawing of a man with his hand on a little
boy’s crotch. It violated parental authority and it presented sex-ed
information that violated Church teaching and did not belong in the classroom
being presented by strangers.”

Pamela Church, a Catholic mother
of five who created Good Touch/Bad Touch some 23 years ago for public schools,
said Bishop Loverde called her at home to tell her he
would be canceling the program.

Instead, he brought in a program
called Virtus and another created by the Diocese of
Harrisburg, Pa., called Formation in Christian Chastity.

Church said the program continues
to be used in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the Dioceses of Louisville,
Ky., Pueblo, Colo., and Richmond, Va., as well as in some Catholic schools in
New York, Salt Lake City and Miami.

For many parents, that’s a
problem. The Register, in a series of articles, is taking a look at their
concerns. They say Good Touch/Bad Touch, developed for pre-kindergarten through
ninth grade, puts the burden on children, making them the first line of defense
against abusers. In addition, critics charge, it does not prevent abuse, and it
doesn’t incorporate parents as primary teachers.

Church said that the major points
covered in the program include: “It’s my body because I’m a child of God and
have the right to know how to keep myself safe. If I feel like something is
wrong, I’m right, and I might need to ask mom or dad about anything I don’t
understand. I have a right to say No and get away and tell. If someone is not
listening, I need to find someone and tell. It’s never my fault.”

Proponents of safe environment
programs point to statistics reported by David Finkelhor
(Sexually Victimized Children) and
Ellen Bass and Laura Davis (The Courage
to Heal) that one in every four girls and one in every six boys will be
sexually abused by the age of 18.
But Dr. Patrick DiVietri,executive director of the Manassas, Va.-based Family Life Institute, an
agency that helps parents educate children in faith and morals, believes the
statistics for Catholic children are different. Said DiVietri,
“All the statistics on abuse are for the general state of society which is a
sampling pool that is radically different than the Catholic school
population.” DiVietri
claims data show the safest places for children are in the intact home of the
biological parents who practice their faith and in schools that hold high
values and religious values and don’t have sexual education programs.

DiVietri has found numerous weaknesses in
the Good Touch/Bad Touch program, including the fact that it uses children as
bait to catch abusers.

It “could shatter the psyche of
the innocent child because it ignores the psychological development of the
child and forces premature sexual awakening without the child having the
capacity to handle it,” DiVietri said.

Forcing Images

DiVietri, who also teaches at Mount St.
Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Md., believes the
program destroys a child’s innocence by forcing images of abuse upon him, thus
damaging the psyche and destroying the serenity and security of the age. He
insists it is not good to have a child focus on his body, because doing so is
not a natural act for children, who are naturally at ease with and not
interested in their bodies.

He points to a recent study in the
American Journal of Community Psychology
by N. Dickon Reppucci,
“Prevention and Ecology: Teenage Pregnancy, Child Sexual Abuse and Organized
Youth Sports,” that found, “School programs aimed at preventing child sex abuse
caused a significant number of children to experience loss of sleep or
appetite, nightmares or fears.”
Another weakness of the program is that it gives treatment to an entire school
population when it is only a few children who need the extra attention. “It may
be less than 5% of the population in the Catholic schools that needs this kind
of instruction; however, the programs are designed for all of the students.
They all have surgery when only one needed it,” said DiVietri.

Still, some bishops believe in
Good Touch/Bad Touch.

“We look forward to an expansion
of the Good Touch/Bad Touch program, which will include providing instruction
to all volunteers, parents and all youth in religious education programs,”
Bishop Arthur Tafoya of Pueblo wrote to the faithful
in late 2005. “Preventing future abuse and promoting healing continues to be a
high priority for me as well as for all concerned persons of our diocese.”

But BishopRobertVasa of Baker, Ore.,is not convinced safe-environment programs for children prevent sexual
abuse. “A lot of these programs, unfortunately, are thinly veiled and disguised
sex education programs that are promoting a sexual agenda that is totally
contrary to what we understand to be the right, the true and the good.”

Others complain the program does
not incorporate the family of the child in the creation and implementation of
the program. They suspect that’s because some parents are suspected as abusers.

Tereza Becica,
from the Los Angeles Archdiocese, where Good Touch/Bad Touch is implemented,
has signed an online petition established by the newly formed Coalition for
Concerned Catholic Parents requesting a moratorium on safe-environment
programs.

“Parents, at least in some
dioceses, weren’t included in the program selection process in the first place,
nor were they contacted with specifics about its content,” she said. “The
reason: Children’s protection came first, and that parents themselves might be
predators. Well, the entire reason this was being implemented was because of
the priest predators.”

Legionary Father Thomas Williams
said parental involvement is a key to any child-protection program.

“I think that what needs to be
emphasized is the active, immediate role of parents and open lines of daily
communication,” he said. “Where that
close trust exists, in an atmosphere of a child knowing he can and should tell
his parents everything, the problem diminishes greatly.”

Christopher Manion,
one of the parents instrumental in ousting Good Touch/Bad Touch from Arlington,
insisted that parents should be the primary educators of their children with
regard to sexual education. The Vatican document Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality teaches that intimate matters
should be taught to children by the family, not in a public setting, he said.
“We know by experience that most families do this and are successful,” said DiVietri. Yet, the
Good Touch/Bad Touch program relies more on the school environment than on the
parental home.

Teresa Kettlelkamp,
executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Office of Child
and Youth Protection, responsible for overseeing compliance with the bishops’ Charter for the Protection of Children and
Young People, recognizes Good Touch/Bad Touch as an acceptable program and
said the development of parental cooperation is encouraged on the diocesan
level.

“The Church supports the premise
that the parents are the primary educators of their children. That’s why the
charter states the diocese will provide safe-environment programs and cooperate
with parents to provide this education and training to the children,” she said.
“I don’t see it as an either-or. The dioceses are encouraged to work in
cooperation with the parents to provide that training. In an ideal situation
the parents are involved with these programs.”

Church, who continues to expand
Good Touch/Bad Touch, maintains that parents are already encouraged to play a
vital role in the program.

The Catholic Medical Association
has established a task force to study the impact of such programs on the
attitudes, behaviors and development of children. It hopes to offer
recommendations to Church leaders, educators and families.